2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2014.07.031
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of human and electronic observation for the measurement of compliance with hand hygiene

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
27
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…12 However, another study did not have this problem. 13 There are several limitations in our study. Our electronic observer is not able to discriminate among the WHO's My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…12 However, another study did not have this problem. 13 There are several limitations in our study. Our electronic observer is not able to discriminate among the WHO's My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Self-reporting has been shown to over-estimate hand washing rates [22] and both observation and self-report are vulnerable to Social Desirability biases. Other monitoring strategies have included Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) [17, 20] and video monitoring [23] technology. However, to-date, perhaps the reason for not implementing them in mainstream practice is due to high cost associated with development, maintenance and reliability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only one study has reported on changes to the HE on inpatient wards after an HH auditor was no longer present; however, this study examined only the period immediately after the auditor left and did not control for temporal and geographic confounding variables, as our study has done 18. Our findings of a limited duration effect of HE are consistent with previous quantitative research showing that the HE is directly caused by participants’ knowledge that they are being observed, in both HH research10 and non-HH research 19.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%